Election unfairness

This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2012, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

The reprint of The Washington Post editorial, "The Electoral College" (Opinion, Nov. 6), depicted efforts to reform the college as risky and difficult.

The editorial warned of "fringe and regional candidates" emerging if the College were replaced by a direct popular vote. Such a step would indeed end the "winner-take-all" electoral vote system that prevails in 48 states, where the candidate who wins the most votes gets all the electoral votes, regardless how close the count.

But there is another source of unfairness in the way the electors are apportioned, which is by adding the number of each state's representatives and senators to get the total number of electors.

Because all states get two senators, regardless of population, this system makes voters in small states more influential than those in populous states. For example, each of Wyoming's three electors represents fewer than 80,000 registered voters, while each of California's 55 electors represents more than 250,000 registered voters.

The solution is obvious: Apportion electors in the Electoral College as representatives are apportioned, leaving the number of senators out of the calculation. No American's vote should count more than any other American's vote, regardless of their location in the country.